Preview of Power Gamer's 3.5 Warrior Strategy Guide

[J.E. Sawyer]

What!?!? Improved Initiative is a bad feat for fighters? It allows you a greater range tactical options, there are lots of monsters that you don't want to get close to, or if your a ranged specialist, or if you have pounce, needs to activate a magical item (drink potion), etc. In the suprise round a fighter can't do a full attack anyway, but the enemy can charge you if it's first, especially nasty when it can pounce...

All I know is that's a lot of "ifs". When the usefulness of a feat is extremely contingent, I believe it is arguable that it does not have widespread usefulness. Improved Initiative is useful for some warriors sometimes. Weapon Specialization is useful for almost all warriors all of the time (i.e., every time they land a blow).

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I played a mid-to-high-level FR fighter/rogue who had +12 to initiative (Improved Initiative, Blooded, Thug, 18 Dex), but still occasionally lost initiative. Until the bonus exceeds half the range of the die, the die is still more relevant for determining the result. If you're playing "that type" of warrior who comes into "those types" of situations often (reading ranged attacks on casters, etc.), a +4 bonus is decent, but I'd say it's far from a must-have, IMO. Especially when it's rolled only once per combat.

I think a lot of these things are highly questionable, but I still believe it's a useful guide for newer gamers. Clearly, there are players out there whose min-maxing skillz are out of the ballpark. But they didn't take the opportunity to write a book on it.

Is this J.E. Sawyer related to a Bishop by any chance?

I have not used that name since 1999 on the Interplay boards. But yeah...

^__________________^

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

You mean you've already worked out all the Power Attack calculations shown on pages 50-51 of the book? For both one-handed and two-handed use? Cross-referenced by BAB and target AC?

No, I have a spreadsheet that does it for me, with way more options than you could ever print in a book

 

[Wycen]

I have not used that name since 1999 on the Interplay boards. But yeah...

^__________________^

Which is why I used that name. Readers missing the connection should dig further into just who is authoring this book, (Rob Schwalb is also not to be overlooked).

 

[banks!]

Power Attack Charts

I like the power attack chart idea. But I did notice that you say "Strength and other enhancements to damage are not included, but since they are uniform across all possible Power Attack options, they don't affect calculations."

You also say "You should include bonuses to attack when you look up your BAB"

But from my calculations, the minute you start adding in bonuses to hit AND damage the outcome of the chart shifts making the chart inaccurate. What appears to happen is that the bigger your damage bonus the less you will want to power attack.

ExampleWhat I'm comparing:
1) A 7th level fighter with a +2 Circumstance bonus and a 10 Strength
(+9 to Hit, +0 to Damage)
with
2) A 7th level fighter with a 14 Strength
(+9 to Hit, +3 to Damage)

Both fighters will use a long sword two handed to get the x2 Power
Attack bonus against an AC 14 opponent (criticals are ignored)

1)
Power Attack: Hit % * Base Damage = Ave Damage
0: 0.80 * 06.5 = 3.6
1: 0.75 * 08.5 = 4.875
2: 0.70 * 10.5 = 5.95
3: 0.65 * 12.5 = 6.825
4: 0.60 * 14.5 = 7.5
5: 0.55 * 16.5 = 7.975
6: 0.50 * 18.5 = 8.25
7: 0.45 * 20.5 = 8.325 (*optimum)

From this, it can be seen that the choice that gives the most average
damage is Power Attacking for 7.
This value matches the results of pg 51 in the book (or pg 15 in
their pdf). If you use their 2-handed table and check AC 14 versus
BAB +9, the result is 7.

The claim is that damage bonuses don't affect this.
Let's look at the other fighter.

Power Attack: Hit % * Base Damage = Ave Damage
0: 0.80 * 09.5 = 6
1: 0.75 * 11.5 = 7.125
2: 0.70 * 13.5 = 8.05
3: 0.65 * 152.5 = 8.775
4: 0.60 * 17.5 = 9.3
5: 0.55 * 19.5 = 9.625
6: 0.50 * 21.5 = 9.75 (*optimum)
7: 0.45 * 23.5 = 9.675

You'll notice here that the strength fighter (+9 to hit, +3 on
damage) maximizes his damage when Power Attacking for 6!

This spreads out more as the Strength bonuses get bigger.

I'm not sure what you intended with the charts. I'm assuming a rough guide for beginners. But the chart results do change when you factor in bonuses that affect To Hit and Damage at the same time.

(*edit that last statement: It should say "But the chart results do change when you factor in Damage bonuses. The bigger the bonus, the more it changes.")

 

[Geoff Watson]

I like the power attack chart idea. But I did notice that you say "Strength and other enhancements to damage are not included, but since they are uniform across all possible Power Attack options, they don't affect calculations."

You also say "You should include bonuses to attack when you look up your BAB"

But from my calculations, the minute you start adding in bonuses to hit AND damage the outcome of the chart shifts making the chart inaccurate. What appears to happen is that the bigger your damage bonus the less you will want to power attack.

Oh dear. If they got that wrong, how accurate are the other calculations? Are they also based on false premises?

Geoff.

 

[Ghostwind]

No, I have a spreadsheet that does it for me, with way more options than you could ever print in a book

Meepo, I would absolutely LOVE to have a look at that spreadsheet.

 

[banks!]

Oh dear. If they got that wrong, how accurate are the other calculations? Are they also based on false premises?

Geoff.

I can't speak for the other calculations as I haven't looked at any of them.

I could have the formula they used wrong for the Power Attack charts. It appears, from some quick reverse engineering that they used:

Hit % * Base Damage = Ave Damage

If they use a different formula then it could present different results and my findings would be irrelevant.

But as it turns out, using the above formula, the minute you start adding in damage bonuses to the Base Damage, the chart changes. Perhaps not at lower bonuses at lower AC's but elsewhere.

 

[Scorpio]

Alright, if you guys know so much, then invest the time and money and publish something, before you critize or dismiss someone who has, and before you've seen it.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Alright, if you guys know so much, then invest the time and money and publish something, before you critize or dismiss someone who has, and before you've seen it.

You can rewrite the Power Attack tables so they'd be useful:

Instead of BAB and AC as row and column headers, use "Average Damage", and "AC minus Attack Bonus" (the number needed to roll to hit since +1 to hit vs AC 11 gives the same numbers as +2 to hit vs AC 12, etc).

It gets slightly more complicated with multiple attacks: You could have four tables, or squeeze four numbers in each cell of the table.

Geoff.

 

[banks!]

Alright, if you guys know so much, then invest the time and money and publish something, before you critize or dismiss someone who has, and before you've seen it.

i already have but that is besides the point. i'm not criticising the product or dismissing it. i am pointing out that there is an inconsistency with the power attack charts. i point this out because i was really looking forward to some power attack charts that i don't need a laptop or a three ring binder to hold. i was just disappointed to discover that they aren't quite there.

i like what the book is trying to do. i liked most of what i read in the preview. i will probably buy the book. before, i would have bought it immediately. now, i will probably have a look it first. my primary interest was hit percentages, etc.